gentic engineering your opinion

[Zenos]

Ok whats is your opinion on Human genetic engineering as toward making people:

1) free of physical defects

2) eliminating hereditary diseases

3) being more resistant to disease

4) increasing the IQ level,and analytical capabilities

5) enhancing physical strength,stamina,agility,speed,reflexes and coordination

6) enhancing the bodies recooperative abilities

[Miserabilia]

1) free of physical defects

We're a long way fromt here, but that would be nice, ofcourse.

2) eliminating hereditary diseases

Well you can't really, since they are just mutations and we all have our own mutations. IF all humans had the same genes we would die out eventually. So eliminating a few would be nice (even though they would eventually turn up) but you can never get rid of all.

3) being more resistant to disease

That's good, obviously, but diseases adapt and evnetualy we won't be resistent anymore to them. YOu'll have to keep updating the resistance.

4) increasing the IQ level,and analytical capabilities

Cool. I would love to see the whole planet a little smarter, because some people... :P

5) enhancing physical strength,stamina,agility,speed,reflexes and coordination

Would be good.

6) enhancing the bodies recooperative abilities

If we can somehow managae that, that would atleast make health care so much easier.

[radsniper]

messing with peoples genes will eventually turn the human race into something else or we will all just die a whole lot quicker

[Stronk Serb]

Now, I don't think messing with our genes is good, but I think we should make cybernetic implants to reach that effect.

[Etcetera]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/The_Giver_Cover.gif

[CharlieHorse]

Ok whats is your opinion on Human genetic engineering as toward making people:

1) free of physical defects
sure

2) eliminating hereditary diseases
this would be be ok

3) being more resistant to disease
can we work on lowering the population first?

4) increasing the IQ level,and analytical capabilities
yes

5) enhancing physical strength,stamina,agility,speed,reflexes and coordination
yes

6) enhancing the bodies recooperative abilities
yes

[Zenos]

Now, I don't think messing with our genes is good, but I think we should make cybernetic implants to reach that effect.

I'd rather have my genes modified into something superior to that what they are now then have cybernetic implants that's too close to the Cybermen from the original Doctor Who series or even the Borg.

At least with genetically engineered DNA you are still human.

[Stronk Serb]

I'd rather have my genes modified into something superior to that what they are now then have cybernetic implants that's too close to the Cybermen from the original Doctor Who series or even the Borg.

At least with genetically engineered DNA you are still human.

No, you are a mutant because you difer from base humans. If we put a gene in our whole race, who knows what it will do to us in the long run.

[Zenos]

No, you are a mutant because you difer from base humans. If we put a gene in our whole race, who knows what it will do to us in the long run.

No actually I wouldn't be a mutant,i'd be superhuman! Too diffrent things

When I say a Superman think along the lines of =)

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

and

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Augment

[Miserabilia]

No actually I wouldn't be a mutant,i'd be superhuman! Too diffrent things

When I say a Superman think along the lines of =)

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

and

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Augment

It doesn't matter what you modify your genes into.
If you let everyone modify their genes to the same superhuman,
the evolutionairy system will fail and adaptivity will become 0%.

We would die out.

[Zenos]

It doesn't matter what you modify your genes into.
If you let everyone modify their genes to the same superhuman,
the evolutionairy system will fail and adaptivity will become 0%.

We would die out.


Not necessarily, what if for example human evolution has plateaued,and our cranial capacity and efficiency of neuronial activity has effectively reached it's maximum unless we begin to manipulate our genetic code to give it a reboot?


Plus you have no proof that we'd just die out.

[Miserabilia]

Not necessarily, what if for example human evolution has plateaued,and our cranial capacity and efficiency of neuronial activity has effectively reached it's maximum unless we begin to manipulate our genetic code to give it a reboot?


Plus you have no proof that we'd just die out.

Something can never reach an evolutionair 'maximum".

And yes, I don't have proof, but I have theoretical proof;
the adaptive power of any life form lies in it's diferentiating genes, it's the whole reason you can't have incest (Too much similar genes causes handicapped or disabled children.)

If everyone has (almost) identical genes, the children would be..well, retarded; the power of sexual reproduction is the combining of different gene sets; if they are not different, the children would not survive.

[sqishy]

It doesn't matter what you modify your genes into.
If you let everyone modify their genes to the same superhuman,
the evolutionairy system will fail and adaptivity will become 0%.

We would die out.

The utopia paradox. I agree. Evolution needs death in order to function, so already today we are evolving less :/ .
Let the ethical wars begin.

If there's not enough death in some from, there's too much of our life and we'll end up screwing up our biosphere and/or causing a mass extinction worse than the one we are going into now.

A great tool, many many ways to use it for great evil as well as good, even without us thinking about it.

[Typhlosion]

Yeah, it would be cool if genetics goes so far. But until then, we're far away from experimenting genetics on human beings.

[Zenos]

Something can never reach an evolutionair 'maximum".

And yes, I don't have proof, but I have theoretical proof;
the adaptive power of any life form lies in it's diferentiating genes, it's the whole reason you can't have incest (Too much similar genes causes handicapped or disabled children.)

If everyone has (almost) identical genes, the children would be..well, retarded; the power of sexual reproduction is the combining of different gene sets; if they are not different, the children would not survive.



wait a minute say just for example that because say me and half a million other people was to go next month and get our DNA modified in to a superior version of human DNA that does not mean we'd all have the exact same DNA,there would still be diffrences between our DNA!

You have the wrong idea on genetic engineering and modification,you seem to think everyone's dna would be exacyly the same and that's not so!


Also you have no definite proof that something can reach it's evolutionary 'maximum".

[Miserabilia]

wait a minute say just for example that because say me and half a million other people was to go next month and get our DNA modified in to a superior version of human DNA that does not mean we'd all have the exact same DNA,there would still be diffrences between our DNA!

You have the wrong idea on genetic engineering and modification,you seem to think everyone's dna would be exacyly the same and that's not so!


Also you have no definite proof that something can reach it's evolutionary 'maximum".

I said it can not reach an evolutionairy maximum.
So either what you said was a typo, or you didn't read what I said correctly.

Anyway,
I was assuming a situation where the entire DNA would be edited,
but if it's just a little part, you still gotta hold acount with evolution and natural selection,
and know that that edited DNA will change too eventualy.
But if it's directly beneficial to human species, yes then it will work
:yes:

[britishboy]

I'm a supporter as long as the human is not made purposefully bad.

[Zenos]

I'm a supporter as long as the human is not made purposefully bad.

I don't think a person can be made purposefully bad through the use of genetic engineering. If they do turn out bad it's either

1)simply because of some personality flaw and science can not get rid of personality,

or

2)Superior Ability Breeds Superior Ambition!

and if a gentic super human goes rogue then I myself would opt for it being reason 2 instead of reason 1.

I'll give you an example and it's with a person of possible average genetics...ME!

Ok as to building up strength I have to stuggle for it unless I use a 20 rep squat program seeing as that's the only thing that kicks my genes into overdrive fast for building muscle size and strength fast.

Now I have to admit once I started doing a 20 rep squat routine and my strength started increasing I realized I had a tendency for developing Superior Ambition due to having superior strength.And I have a tendency for this ambition to not be restrained by any consideration of the rights of others and I tend to fight that.

So it's not that science would created a person bad,but that Superior Ability Breeds Superior Ambition and some genetically engineered humans might give into that Superior Ambition

[kanine]

I think we can only genetically engineer test tube babies, seeing as genes are inherited from parentage. That's not to say that an entire generation of test tube super babies wouldn't be cool. Although, it sounds like it might end up a little something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/ChildrenoftheCornPoster.jpg

[Zenos]

[QUOTE=kanine;2710829]I think we can only genetically engineer test tube babies, seeing as genes are inherited from parentage. That's not to say that an entire generation of test tube super babies wouldn't be cool. Although, it sounds like it might end up a little something like this:
QUOTE]

I doubt Children of the Corn more like some form of Khan Noonien Singh might crop up though.

[kanine]

[QUOTE=kanine;2710829]I think we can only genetically engineer test tube babies, seeing as genes are inherited from parentage. That's not to say that an entire generation of test tube super babies wouldn't be cool. Although, it sounds like it might end up a little something like this:
QUOTE]

I doubt Children of the Corn more like some form of Khan Noonien Singh might crop up though.
You're right, it's definately more like:
http://images3.alphacoders.com/854/85479.jpg

[Zenos]

[QUOTE=Zenos;2710832]
You're right, it's definately more like:
image (http://images3.alphacoders.com/854/85479.jpg)

I'd rather be dealing with a Khan at least he's Human even if a superior version of Humanity,instead of that !

[kanine]

[QUOTE=kanine;2710846]

I'd rather be dealing with a Khan at least he's Human even if a superior version of Humanity,instead of that !

Yeah, I don't think a Khan grows wings and spontaniously changes gender and then go's all psycho after weird interspecies intercourse with her dad/engineer guy. Yeah, let's go with the Khan thing.

[Its Pretty]

1) free of physical defects

Isn't that entirely subjective?

2) eliminating hereditary diseases

Great, until New ones come up. As we are now, hereditary diseases are increasing at a fast rate in our newborns.

3) being more resistant to disease
4 would help with this.

4) increasing the IQ level,and analytical capabilities

IQ isn't important anymore, intelligence is getting weaker and weaker in each passing generation.

5) enhancing physical strength,stamina,agility,speed,reflexes and coordination

Would mean that people have to eat more. No one really needs any of that anymore, anyway.

6) enhancing the bodies recooperative abilities

Is the slowing or halting of senscence included in this? My god, how i'd hate to live forever
[Quote/]

Anyway, a politician already tried to do something just like this. His name was Adolf Hitler. We all know how that ended, right?

Also, when you say raising I.Q., you are referring to intelligence, right?

[Miserabilia]

[Quote/]

Anyway, a politician already tried to do something just like this. His name was Adolf Hitler. We all know how that ended, right?

Also, when you say raising I.Q., you are referring to intelligence, right?

wait a minute... that's not my quote :eek:

[NeuroTiger]

whats is your opinion on Human genetic engineering as toward making people:

1) free of physical defects
That's a good thing for those born with physical handicaps.

2) eliminating hereditary diseases
eliminating AIDS or diabetes from new-born babies will be wonderful.

3) being more resistant to disease
It's a good point but many diseases will tend to mutate and become more resistant to antidotes. Those unable to pay the hefty cost of genetic engineering will be bound to die.

4) increasing the IQ level,and analytical capabilities
That might be positive for the world. We will have a lot of Einsteins, Newtons, Bells and Watts around us.

5) enhancing physical strength,stamina,agility,speed,reflexes and coordination
Usain Bolt's world records would be easily broken! :P

6) enhancing the bodies recooperative abilities
I think, it's the perfect human being being set up :P

[Zenos]

whats is your opinion on Human genetic engineering as toward making people:

1) free of physical defects
That's a good thing for those born with physical handicaps.

2) eliminating hereditary diseases
eliminating AIDS or diabetes from new-born babies will be wonderful.

3) being more resistant to disease
It's a good point but many diseases will tend to mutate and become more resistant to antidotes. Those unable to pay the hefty cost of genetic engineering will be bound to die.

4) increasing the IQ level,and analytical capabilities
That might be positive for the world. We will have a lot of Einsteins, Newtons, Bells and Watts around us.

5) enhancing physical strength,stamina,agility,speed,reflexes and coordination
Usain Bolt's world records would be easily broken! :P

6) enhancing the bodies recooperative abilities
I think, it's the perfect human being being set up :P

Now if we could just go about doing it without creating a race of Alexander's and Napoleon's

[Capto]

There's an obvious bad taste in the mouths of many regarding eugenics because, well, Hitler.

[Zenos]

There's an obvious bad taste in the mouths of many regarding eugenics because, well, Hitler.

well we have come along way in the understanding of eugenics since his day.

I myself do not let one group of histories clowns from hell put a bad taste in my mouth over eugenics,espcially not seeing as even america back in Hitlers day along with several other nations,had their own eugenics programs going on in their own ways,programs and ideas which lead up to the Nazi ideas and programs in eugenics might I also say!

[Capto]

Of course, there's also the fact that eugenics is generally obsolete.

[jayce_xt]

Something can never reach an evolutionair 'maximum".

And yes, I don't have proof, but I have theoretical proof;
the adaptive power of any life form lies in it's diferentiating genes, it's the whole reason you can't have incest (Too much similar genes causes handicapped or disabled children.)

If everyone has (almost) identical genes, the children would be..well, retarded; the power of sexual reproduction is the combining of different gene sets; if they are not different, the children would not survive.

This is actually incorrect. In biology, we learn that there is no such thing as "too much similar genes". If two people who are exactly the same breed, then the child will simply be an exact copy.

The problem of defects comes with defective genes. Most of these are recessive traits (that is, both people have to have at least one recessive allele in order to pass on the disease to their children). Thus, incest is only a problem if both people have the same defective gene, which is statistically more likely, but definitely not at all guaranteed except in the most inbred of families. If we're modifying people's DNA to make them superior, however, we can literally edit these defective genes out. Quite the opposite of what you might think, we'll actually reduce or even eliminate all genetic disorders from the human race :)

Praise science!

Oh, and I'd totally go for all of these genetic modifications.

[Capto]

If two people who are exactly the same breed, then the child will simply be an exact copy.


That's less than a one in a million chance, to have, what, a male and a female who are homozygous for all the same traits"?

Mutations, bro.

[Zenos]

Of course, there's also the fact that eugenics is generally obsolete.

No it's just our knowledge has grown to the point that even genetic engineering and the human genome project is with in the realm of eugenics

[Capto]

No it's just our knowledge has grown to the point that even genetic engineering and the human genome project is with in the realm of eugenics

Exactly.

Eugenics is obsolete. Genetics is expanding.

[jayce_xt]

That's less than a one in a million chance, to have, what, a male and a female who are homozygous for all the same traits"?

Mutations, bro.

I know that -_- the point was, having a male and female who were homozygous for all the same traits does not automatically lead to birth defects, as cheesee was implying. Please read more carefully. Besides, mutations are kinda uncommon, and not guaranteed to happen in every child. Or even most children.

[Capto]

I know that -_- the point was, having a male and female who were homozygous for all the same traits does not automatically lead to birth defects, as cheesee was implying. Please read more carefully. Besides, mutations are kinda uncommon, and not guaranteed to happen in every child. Or even most children.

Apparently you need to read more carefully.

Or just learn what mutations actually are, and how nigh every dichotomous aspect of you and me is a mutation.

[Miserabilia]

This is actually incorrect. In biology, we learn that there is no such thing as "too much similar genes". If two people who are exactly the same breed, then the child will simply be an exact copy.

The problem of defects comes with defective genes. Most of these are recessive traits (that is, both people have to have at least one recessive allele in order to pass on the disease to their children). Thus, incest is only a problem if both people have the same defective gene, which is statistically more likely, but definitely not at all guaranteed except in the most inbred of families. If we're modifying people's DNA to make them superior, however, we can literally edit these defective genes out. Quite the opposite of what you might think, we'll actually reduce or even eliminate all genetic disorders from the human race :)

Praise science!

Oh, and I'd totally go for all of these genetic modifications.

I know, I never said "too much similar genes", I take biology,
I mean that any gene set has some defect, and defects are gaurenteed to return with complete incest where everyone has the same genes;
people would eventualy become less resistent to illenss and adaptation as their gene sets don't change. The whole point of sexual reproduction is the switching of many genes, to ensure maximum optimality.

[jayce_xt]

I know, I never said "too much similar genes", I take biology,

This isn't your post, then?

And yes, I don't have proof, but I have theoretical proof;the adaptive power of any life form lies in it's diferentiating genes, it's the whole reason you can't have incest (Too much similar genes causes handicapped or disabled children.)

If everyone has (almost) identical genes, the children would be..well, retarded; the power of sexual reproduction is the combining of different gene sets; if they are not different, the children would not survive.


I mean that any gene set has some defect, and defects are gaurenteed to return with complete incest where everyone has the same genes; people would eventualy become less resistent to illenss and adaptation as their gene sets don't change. The whole point of sexual reproduction is the switching of many genes, to ensure maximum optimality.

Ahhh, but the whole point of editing and re-writing human DNA is to eliminate said errors. To make us perfect (which is possible, once we figure out what all the sequences mean).

Technically, sexual reproduction doesn't have a point. Much like every other evolutionary adaptation (read: mutation), it was completely random. It does happen to lend itself to random expression of genes, though, which can be helpful.

However, "optimality" has nothing to do with it. The expression of genes is random. You're just as likely to get "good" genes as you are to get "bad" genes. Sexual reproduction does not discriminate, and will not "choose" the better genes for you.

[Capto]

Facepalming so hard.

[Miserabilia]

This isn't your post, then?






Ahhh, but the whole point of editing and re-writing human DNA is to eliminate said errors. To make us perfect (which is possible, once we figure out what all the sequences mean).

Technically, sexual reproduction doesn't have a point. Much like every other evolutionary adaptation (read: mutation), it was completely random. It does happen to lend itself to random expression of genes, though, which can be helpful.

However, "optimality" has nothing to do with it. The expression of genes is random. You're just as likely to get "good" genes as you are to get "bad" genes. Sexual reproduction does not discriminate, and will not "choose" the better genes for you.

I don't think you understand sexual reproduction.
First of all, it allows evolution of the organism to be faster and more adaptive, as the genes are varried much more than it would with a complete copy of itself.
Secondly, people for example, are attracted to other people with a immume system that is as different as possible from theirs.
(This has been proven many times, look it up)

THe point of sexual reproduction in that case is allow your children to have a wide variety immume system.

Technically, sexual reproduction doesn't have a point. Much like every other evolutionary adaptation (read: mutation), it was completely random. It does happen to lend itself to random expression of genes, though, which can be helpful.

Sexual reproduction is not a single genetic mutation,
and if it didn't have a point it wouldn't exist.
Ofcourse, eventualy evey different quality of an organism is an mutation if you go back long enough. And they are all completely random.
It definetly has a point, if it didn't it wouldn't be so succesful.

However, "optimality" has nothing to do with it. The expression of genes is random. You're just as likely to get "good" genes as you are to get "bad" genes. Sexual reproduction does not discriminate, and will not "choose" the better genes for you.

I never said that.
The point is to give one a wider variety, and thus more immume to a wide range of diseases, etc.
Also this allows for better adaptation.

[jayce_xt]

I don't think you understand sexual reproduction... Sexual reproduction is not a single genetic mutation, and if it didn't have a point it wouldn't exist... Ofcourse, eventualy evey different quality of an organism is an mutation if you go back long enough. And they are all completely random... It definetly has a point, if it didn't it wouldn't be so succesful.

... I'll just give you the "special clap" and move right along ^.^ this is just too damn funny.

For future reference, "having a point" implies that there is intention or choice in the matter. Thus, sexual reproduction "having a point" implies that evolution is a thinking entity that employed sexual reproduction, and will fire sexual reproduction if it doesn't perform the way evolution desires.

Sexual reproduction coincidentally happens to be beneficial, yes. But sexual reproduction did not come into being because a purpose needed to be filled. It was just a coincidence. Just like the color of our hair, the shape of our bodies, or the color of our blood. These traits all benefit us in some way, but they were in no way, shape, or form "sought out" by evolution. Just random chance.

Facepalming so hard.

Do go on, please.

[Zenos]

Exactly.

Eugenics is obsolete. Genetics is expanding.

No it's the science of Eugenics that's expanding as new things are discovered and falls under it umbrella.

[Miserabilia]

... I'll just give you the "special clap" and move right along ^.^ this is just too damn funny.

For future reference, "having a point" implies that there is intention or choice in the matter. Thus, sexual reproduction "having a point" implies that evolution is a thinking entity that employed sexual reproduction, and will fire sexual reproduction if it doesn't perform the way evolution desires.

Sexual reproduction coincidentally happens to be beneficial, yes. But sexual reproduction did not come into being because a purpose needed to be filled. It was just a coincidence. Just like the color of our hair, the shape of our bodies, or the color of our blood. These traits all benefit us in some way, but they were in no way, shape, or form "sought out" by evolution. Just random chance.



Do go on, please.

For future reference, "having a point" implies that there is intention or choice in the matter. Thus, sexual reproduction "having a point" implies that evolution is a thinking entity that employed sexual reproduction, and will fire sexual reproduction if it doesn't perform the way evolution desires.

Yes, legs are made of cells with randomly occured genetic information, legs evolved through random selection;
so legs have no "point".
I'm not retarded, with having a point I mean that it serves a function in the organisms.

Just like legs are used to walk, they are there for a reason; to walk.
If legs did not have function, organissm with legs would not have survived and there wouldn't be any.

Sexual reproduction coincidentally happens to be beneficial, yes. But sexual reproduction did not come into being because a purpose needed to be filled. It was just a coincidence. Just like the color of our hair, the shape of our bodies, or the color of our blood. These traits all benefit us in some way, but they were in no way, shape, or form "sought out" by evolution. Just random chance.

Do you think I don't know what genetic mutations are?
Do you think it's all random?
There's a thing called natural selection,
and if the mutations weren't beneficial for the organisms, they wouldn't survive.

I'm not sure what point you are even trying to make right now;
there's no reason to act like I'm a f*in r-tard for saying a function of an organism has a point.
It has a point, just like the point of your heart is to pump blood.

Eventualy you can trace everything back to random mutations, but if they weren't beneficial they wouldn't be passed on enough to last.
It's the basic principle of evolution.

I'm not sure what you think is funny about sexual reproduction having a point, just like every function of an organism has or had a point.
It allows for quicker adaptation (Meitosis evolution takes long, sexal reproduction can allow organisms to adapt through natural evolution in even a single generation)

So please, instead of walking in and "laughing", try to actualy understand what I'm trying to say.

[jayce_xt]

Yes, legs are made of cells with randomly occured genetic information, legs evolved through random selection;
so legs have no "point".
I'm not retarded, with having a point I mean that it serves a function in the organisms.

Being retarded and not being knowledgeable are hardly the same thing. I recommend that you refrain from tossing around "retarded" like an insult, lest you offend someone who has actual experience with mental handicaps.

Just like legs are used to walk, they are there for a reason; to walk.
If legs did not have function, organissm with legs would not have survived and there wouldn't be any.

Correction: if the legs impeded important life functions, organisms with legs would not have survived to reproduce. Mutations do not need to be useful to remain in the gene pool. Rather, the specimens afflicted with them simply need to survive long enough to pass them on. This distinction is important below.

Do you think I don't know what genetic mutations are?
Do you think it's all random?
There's a thing called natural selection,
and if the mutations weren't beneficial for the organisms, they wouldn't survive.

Yes, it is, in fact, all random. And again, natural selection, like evolution, isn't some deciding entity. It's an idea that denotes certain trends. As I said above, a mutation doesn't need to be beneficial. An afflicted creature's mutation can actually be fairly useless, and it still has just as good a chance as any to survive. Natural selection states that beneficial mutations tend to spread, and malicious mutations tend to die out. Mutations that don't fit in either category have no such trends.

I'm not sure what point you are even trying to make right now;
there's no reason to act like I'm a f*in r-tard for saying a function of an organism has a point.
It has a point, just like the point of your heart is to pump blood.

The point I was making was that attacking someone else's knowledge of a subject doesn't work when your own is lacking.

Eventualy you can trace everything back to random mutations, but if they weren't beneficial they wouldn't be passed on enough to last.
It's the basic principle of evolution.

Already covered.

I'm not sure what you think is funny about sexual reproduction having a point, just like every function of an organism has or had a point.
It allows for quicker adaptation (Meitosis evolution takes long, sexal reproduction can allow organisms to adapt through natural evolution in even a single generation)

What I found funny was that you had these misconceptions and were passing them off as fact while, at the same time, attacking the actual facts I was presenting. As an aside, I'm not sure if you're trying to write "mitosis" or "meiosis". Either way, sexual reproduction does not at all allow for quicker adaptation than asexual reproduction. This is solely determined by the rate of reproduction in the species. The more often they reproduce, the more likely mutations are to occur. Mutations are what lead to evolution; reproduction is simply the mode by which these evolutionary adaptations propagate. A subtle, but important, difference.

So please, instead of walking in and "laughing", try to actualy understand what I'm trying to say.

I did. That's why I took the time to explain your errors to you earlier. Then you grew belligerent and started spouting misconceptions as facts. I also read up on the studies that "people are attracted to other people with an immune system that is as different as possible from theirs". Or rather, I read the magazine articles that portrayed the studies in that light.

The magazines were full of shit.

The actual research simply said something to the effect of, "it turns out that attractive men have higher levels of testosterone, and coincidentally, they also have stronger immune responses". There was absolutely nothing in there that correlated "level of attraction to the person" and "difference between the subject's immune system and the attractive person's". It was simply a catchy headline that the magazines thought would sell and catch on. Clearly, it did. It also misrepresented what the researchers were saying on a fundamental level.

[Miserabilia]

Being retarded and not being knowledgeable are hardly the same thing. I recommend that you refrain from tossing around "retarded" like an insult, lest you offend someone who has actual experience with mental handicaps.



Correction: if the legs impeded important life functions, organisms with legs would not have survived to reproduce. Mutations do not need to be useful to remain in the gene pool. Rather, the specimens afflicted with them simply need to survive long enough to pass them on. This distinction is important below.



Yes, it is, in fact, all random. And again, natural selection, like evolution, isn't some deciding entity. It's an idea that denotes certain trends. As I said above, a mutation doesn't need to be beneficial. An afflicted creature's mutation can actually be fairly useless, and it still has just as good a chance as any to survive. Natural selection states that beneficial mutations tend to spread, and malicious mutations tend to die out. Mutations that don't fit in either category have no such trends.



The point I was making was that attacking someone else's knowledge of a subject doesn't work when your own is lacking.



Already covered.



What I found funny was that you had these misconceptions and were passing them off as fact while, at the same time, attacking the actual facts I was presenting. As an aside, I'm not sure if you're trying to write "mitosis" or "meiosis". Either way, sexual reproduction does not at all allow for quicker adaptation than asexual reproduction. This is solely determined by the rate of reproduction in the species. The more often they reproduce, the more likely mutations are to occur. Mutations are what lead to evolution; reproduction is simply the mode by which these evolutionary adaptations propagate. A subtle, but important, difference.



I did. That's why I took the time to explain your errors to you earlier. Then you grew belligerent and started spouting misconceptions as facts. I also read up on the studies that "people are attracted to other people with an immune system that is as different as possible from theirs". Or rather, I read the magazine articles that portrayed the studies in that light.

The magazines were full of shit.

The actual research simply said something to the effect of, "it turns out that attractive men have higher levels of testosterone, and coincidentally, they also have stronger immune responses". There was absolutely nothing in there that correlated "level of attraction to the person" and "difference between the subject's immune system and the attractive person's". It was simply a catchy headline that the magazines thought would sell and catch on. Clearly, it did. It also misrepresented what the researchers were saying on a fundamental level.
Correction: if the legs impeded important life functions, organisms with legs would not have survived to reproduce. Mutations do not need to be useful to remain in the gene pool. Rather, the specimens afflicted with them simply need to survive long enough to pass them on. This distinction is important below.

If legs didn't serve a function, the mutation would remain but it would not be more succesful than other mutations so it's unlikely for the entire species to evolve to having legs.
Yes, it is, in fact, all random. And again, natural selection, like evolution, isn't some deciding entity. It's an idea that denotes certain trends. As I said above, a mutation doesn't need to be beneficial. An afflicted creature's mutation can actually be fairly useless, and it still has just as good a chance as any to survive. Natural selection states that beneficial mutations tend to spread, and malicious mutations tend to die out. Mutations that don't fit in either category have no such trends.

Seriously, do you think I do not know these things?
I already acknowledged to know that mutations are random.
Narual selection is however not random.
I never said a mutation has to be beneficial,
I said you can tell it's beneficial because it's still there in a lot of species.
The point I was making was that attacking someone else's knowledge of a subject doesn't work when your own is lacking.

How is my knowledge lacking?

What I found funny was that you had these misconceptions and were passing them off as fact while, at the same time, attacking the actual facts I was presenting. As an aside, I'm not sure if you're trying to write "mitosis" or "meiosis". Either way, sexual reproduction does not at all allow for quicker adaptation than asexual reproduction. This is solely determined by the rate of reproduction in the species. The more often they reproduce, the more likely mutations are to occur. Mutations are what lead to evolution; reproduction is simply the mode by which these evolutionary adaptations propagate. A subtle, but important, difference.

Please, show me one of these "misconceptions" that I passed of as a fact.
I never "attacked the actual facts"/

Sexual reproduction does allow for quicker adaptation.
You do not have to explain to me what mutations are.
I think you are forgetting the diference between sexual and nonsexual reproduction.
In asexual reproduction, an exist copy of the parent is made.
The colony of the species will be mostly very similar organisms.
In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have half genes from both parents, and are therefore a new and unique organism.

I did. That's why I took the time to explain your errors to you earlier. Then you grew belligerent and started spouting misconceptions as facts. I also read up on the studies that "people are attracted to other people with an immune system that is as different as possible from theirs". Or rather, I read the magazine articles that portrayed the studies in that light.

What "errors"?
What "spouting misconceptions"?
Would you please stop being rude?

And just because you looked at one research,in some magazine, doesn't mean that that is the one I was talking about.

You could have even just looked it up on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odor_and_subconscious_human_sexual_attraction

[jayce_xt]

Please, show me one of these "misconceptions" that I passed of as a fact.
I never "attacked the actual facts"/

Some choice examples:

the adaptive power of any life form lies in it's diferentiating genes, it's the whole reason you can't have incest (Too much similar genes causes handicapped or disabled children.)

Sexual reproduction is not a single genetic mutation,
and if it didn't have a point it wouldn't exist.

and if the mutations weren't beneficial for the organisms, they wouldn't survive.

(Meitosis evolution takes long, sexal reproduction can allow organisms to adapt through natural evolution in even a single generation)

^^^^ These statements are all flawed. Incest is fine; long-term inbreeding can be damaging if there are recessive genetic disorders in the bloodline. Similarly, many "pointless" evolutionary characteristics exist in the animal kingdom. Particularly in the insect world, we see many instances of body, limb, and protrusion ergonomics that could be much more efficient, or are even detrimental to the organism's life. Yet they still exist. Finally, you are confusing evolution and genetic variation. If you have a daughter who is smarter than you, for instance, she did not "evolve". Her genes are simply deviant to yours. Evolution occurs in such a way that either the entire species changes or diverges into two separate, distinct groups.

Sexual reproduction does allow for quicker adaptation.
You do not have to explain to me what mutations are.
I think you are forgetting the diference between sexual and nonsexual reproduction.
In asexual reproduction, an exist copy of the parent is made.
The colony of the species will be mostly very similar organisms.
In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have half genes from both parents, and are therefore a new and unique organism.

This is not evolution, however.

What "errors"?
What "spouting misconceptions"?
Would you please stop being rude?

The errors are pointed out above.

And just because you looked at one research,in some magazine, doesn't mean that that is the one I was talking about.

You could have even just looked it up on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odor_and_subconscious_human_sexual_attraction

I looked at multiple magazine articles. I also looked at the actual case study itself. In fact, I also just now read this wikipedia article. The wikipedia article makes an assumption that the actual case study doesn't: adaptationism. Here is the wikipedia article regarding adaptationism.

The TL;DR version: it's logically incorrect to simply assume that many--if not most--traits are adaptations toward improvement without sufficient evidence. And in the case of this study you talked about, there is no such evidence to suggest that this was an adaptation. There is much more evidence to suggest that it's a coincidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptationism

[Lovelife090994]

The problem with genetic modification is how it can be abused. Sure you cure disease, but what about superhumans? We'll have subhuman vs sperhuman, and besides this may cause more harm than good. To me, genetics is an amzing field, to me genetic modification on humans is just too risky.

[Miserabilia]

Some choice examples:









^^^^ These statements are all flawed. Incest is fine; long-term inbreeding can be damaging if there are recessive genetic disorders in the bloodline. Similarly, many "pointless" evolutionary characteristics exist in the animal kingdom. Particularly in the insect world, we see many instances of body, limb, and protrusion ergonomics that could be much more efficient, or are even detrimental to the organism's life. Yet they still exist. Finally, you are confusing evolution and genetic variation. If you have a daughter who is smarter than you, for instance, she did not "evolve". Her genes are simply deviant to yours. Evolution occurs in such a way that either the entire species changes or diverges into two separate, distinct groups.



This is not evolution, however.



The errors are pointed out above.



I looked at multiple magazine articles. I also looked at the actual case study itself. In fact, I also just now read this wikipedia article. The wikipedia article makes an assumption that the actual case study doesn't: adaptationism. Here is the wikipedia article regarding adaptationism.

The TL;DR version: it's logically incorrect to simply assume that many--if not most--traits are adaptations toward improvement without sufficient evidence. And in the case of this study you talked about, there is no such evidence to suggest that this was an adaptation. There is much more evidence to suggest that it's a coincidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptationism

These statements are all flawed. Incest is fine; long-term inbreeding can be damaging if there are recessive genetic disorders in the bloodline. Similarly, many "pointless" evolutionary characteristics exist in the animal kingdom. Particularly in the insect world, we see many instances of body, limb, and protrusion ergonomics that could be much more efficient, or are even detrimental to the organism's life. Yet they still exist. Finally, you are confusing evolution and genetic variation. If you have a daughter who is smarter than you, for instance, she did not "evolve". Her genes are simply deviant to yours. Evolution occurs in such a way that either the entire species changes or diverges into two separate, distinct groups.

Yes, the thing I said about incest was wrong, and the other thing were not worded right by me.
I hoped you would see what I meant.

Sexual reproduction is not a single genetic mutation,
and if it didn't have a point it wouldn't exist.
I'll correct it to make it easier for you;

Sexual reproduction is not a single genetic mutation,
and if i didn't have a point organisms with sexual reproduction would not have done so well and kept the trait.
And the evoluion thing, what I meant to say was adaptation, I mean that sexual reproduction allows for more selective adaptation;
the partner may be attracted to a partner that is immume to a disease that they know is breaking out now, and they can bring out that gene to their children.


There is much more evidence to suggest that it's a coincidence.
How could it be a coincidence that people can smell each others immume systems and facial symetry?
Do you think they just happen to have those senses and they just happen to recognize properties that are benficiel for their offspring?

My whole point from the start, before you started lashing on everything I said, is that you can not simply allow all humans for example to have all the same genes.
It would not work on the large timescale.
Having many different genetic properties is beneficial for us as a species.
If all the organisms of one sexually reproducing kind would be identical in genes they would not survive because they would not be able to adapt to changing circumstances fast enough.

ps; I was not trying to say all evolutionairy traits are optimal for the organism. I'm saying that in general they are or otherwise were at some point, I was trying to explain what I meant with "sexual reproduction has a point".

[Elvalight]

Nobody should mess with nature :/

[Zenos]

Nobody should mess with nature :/

I reserve the right too poke sticks an nature:P

[Elvalight]

I reserve the right too poke sticks an nature:P

wat?

[Zenos]

wat?

well you said:

Nobody should mess with nature ,so I said I I reserve the right too poke sticks at nature

[Elvalight]

well you said:

Nobody should mess with nature ,so I said I I reserve the right too poke sticks at nature

OBJECTION! you said too poke sticks an nature, you speak lies! >:O

[Zenos]

OBJECTION! you said too poke sticks an nature, you speak lies! >:O

I had meant at not an..it was type o:rolleyes: